Steve, your argument is that the problem with anarchists is that they are anarchists (they don't build a political alternative to the government). That's fine if you feel that way, but don't insist on evaluating anarchist principles in terms of success in creating something (a new state) that they want to destroy. You seem to to think that anarchists wish to "scare" the government to the left. I hope you can realize that this is an absurd misrepresentation of anarchist goals. Your insistence on a "political alternative" leads me to believe that you don't even desire communism, or an end to class society. State capitalism is NOT communism. Anarchists are anti-political because they are for people's direct control of their living activity (sometimes referred to as communism, the absence of alienated labor). Your absurd notion that you can vote for revolution because revolution is embodied in the party which represents the people disgusts me. Anarchists tend to call that counter-revolution, since the Party which represents the People must of necessity turn against many of those people and imprison or kill them in the name of their revolution. I don't really feel like we have all that much to discuss, since you seem to identify with a tradition (or at least share the same principles and goals) that sees anarchists as the enemy since they cannot be brought under the control of any Party, whether "revolutionary" or not. If you are interested in the writings of communists who do not identify with the anarchist tradition but who genuinely want a classless, non-bureaucratic society without wage-labor, check out www.geocities.com/~johngray/ and especially www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/etoc.html, which has an essay called "What is Communism" or "Capitalism and Communism." The writnigs of the Situationist International, especially Debord's Society of the Spectacle would fit in this category as well. adios.